Re: Negative effects of c++ in C

From	David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: Negative effects of c++ in C
Date	2016-11-23 00:19 +0100
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<o12jpk$pbl$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	<o1160t$a5q$1@dont-email.me> <87r363y4dh.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <o11md9$4jd$1@dont-email.me> <o11q40$hd2$2@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

On 22/11/16 17:01, jacobnavia wrote:
> Le 22/11/2016 à 15:58, David Brown a écrit :
>> You can minimise the tables by using the -fno-unwind-tables
>> -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables flags.
>
> I used -fno-unwind-tables with NO effect. Now there is another (yet
> another) option I should use?
>

Yes, the other flag I gave "-fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables".  According 
to my googling, this is the more important one, but the 
"-fno-unwind-tables" may also help.

There will still be a little bit of tables, from static libraries.  You 
could probably eliminate them with objcopy and the right choices of 
sections to keep and discard, but I have no idea whether the resulting 
binaries will work or not - tools such as the link-loader expect 
binaries to follow the platform ABI.

Note that this only affects the size of the binary file, not run-time 
speed.  And I expect that most of those parts of the binary file will 
not get paged into memory when the program is run, so the cost is just a 
little disk space - not unlike the cost of leaving debug information in 
the binary.

> Will try that (what a bore that compiler)
>

Thread

Negative effects of c++ in C jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-22 11:18 +0100
  Re: Negative effects of c++ in C Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-11-22 11:46 +0100
    Re: Negative effects of c++ in C jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-22 14:48 +0100
      Re: Big main() "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 21:51 +0800
      Re: Negative effects of c++ in C Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-11-22 15:29 +0100
      Re: Negative effects of c++ in C antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2016-11-22 15:09 +0000
    Re: Negative effects of c++ in C jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-22 16:58 +0100
  Re: Negative effects of c++ in C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-22 14:29 +0000
    Re: Negative effects of c++ in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-22 15:58 +0100
      Re: Negative effects of c++ in C Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-22 15:55 +0000
      Re: Negative effects of c++ in C jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-22 17:01 +0100
        Re: Negative effects of c++ in C Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-11-22 18:32 +0100
        Re: Negative effects of c++ in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-23 00:19 +0100
  [OT] It's only words... :) "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 22:55 +0800
    Re: [OT] It's only words... :) "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 22:57 +0800
  Re: Negative effects of c++ in C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-23 08:43 +1300
    Re: Negative effects of c++ in C jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-22 21:14 +0100
    Re: Negative effects of c++ in C jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-11-22 21:17 +0100
  Re: Negative effects of c++ in C rockbrentwood@gmail.com - 2016-11-23 15:41 -0800
    Re: Negative effects of c++ in C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-23 16:19 -0800
      Re: Negative effects of c++ in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-24 14:06 +0100
        Re: Negative effects of c++ in C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-24 07:36 -0800
          Re: Negative effects of c++ in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-25 00:23 +0100
            Re: Negative effects of c++ in C supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-25 09:42 -0800
    Re: Negative effects of c++ in C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-23 16:34 -0800
      Re: Negative effects of c++ in C David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-24 14:55 +0100

csiph-web